Can someone point me to an example of a society where good faith communication has dominated? This article paints a picture that the issue is something new, but I don't know any human society where bad faith communication was not a norm. Differences are mainly related to power structures and who holds the Power to communicate. Besides, this is really a dualist perspective to communication. What if most communication is neither good faith or bad faith, but something in between?
Examples I would use would be sports teams, construction teams, hunting groups, military units, sailing crews, fraternal organizations, and other environents that apprehend consequences from playing games. These are environments where competence and integrity are moral virtues, and misrepresentation has real consequences.
Good faith communication is not the norm in bureaucracies, institutions, large cities, and other environments where there are no significant or collective consequences to being misleading.
By society I meant civilizations, such as ancient Greece. I think I articulated it poorly.
I believe that good faith communication dominates in ingroup discussion. Trust matters when you discuss with peers whose approval matters to you. Bad faith communication dominates in outgroup discussion. Trust is not important as you really don't care about the "others".
